| But there are still two things I don't much care for. One is the "implicit
| result" of an RTF, I'd prefer people to write
| 
| <exsl:function ...>
| <exsl:return>
|    <tree/>
| </exsl:return>
| </exsl:function>
| 
| rather than just
| 
| <exsl:function ...>
|    <tree/>
| </exsl:function>

I agree with Michael on this.

| Secondly, I don't like treating multiple exsl:result's as a "recoverable
| error".

I agree witih Michael on this, too.

| I still prefer having a static constraint on where <exsl:return> can appear,
| but if you can't live with that, have a strict rule that only one may be
| instantiated.

A rule that only one can be instantiated seems workable to me.

| (And incidentally, I prefer "return" to "result". It's in tune with the
| imperative style of other keywords such as call-template, apply-templates,
| include, import.)

I also prefer "return". It's more "verby", as M.K. notes, in the
XSLT naming style.

______________________________________________________________
Steve Muench, Lead XML Evangelist & Consulting Product Manager
BC4J & XSQL Servlet Development Teams, Oracle Rep to XSL WG
Author "Building Oracle XML Applications", O'Reilly
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/orxmlapp/



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list